from the can't-admit-the-truth? dept

As part of the latest effort by the US to get China to respect US patent, copyright and trademark laws, it's apparently sent Attorney General Eric Holder to Asia to make speeches that are blatantly ridiculous. You can read the text of the speech that Holder recently gave in Hong Kong, and try not to gag at the claims he makes that are either blatantly misleading or simply outright falsehoods. The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law -- not lie to protect the interests of a few companies.

After kicking it off with (yet another) conflation of serious counterfeiting issues (that actually put people's lives in danger) with file sharing of music, movies and software, he simply parrots the totally debunked BSA's stats on unauthorized software:

The global software industry is a prime example.

Indeed. If you look at open source software and how they've been able to put together incredible businesses, and enable all sorts of innovation by being the core building blocks of the internet, the web, email and giant companies like Google and Facebook, it really is a prime example of how "piracy" isn't a legal issue, but a business model one. Or wait, did you mean something different?

According to recent industry reports, it is now estimated that, worldwide, more than 40 percent of all software installed on personal computers is obtained illegally -- with forgone revenues to the software industry topping $50 billion.

Yes, according to industry reports. But not according to reality. The "foregone revenue" number is based on a simply laughable claim of a 1:1 ratio of unauthorized copies to "foregone revenue." No intellectually honest person would suggest that number is accurate.

These are funds that could have been invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies.

Right, except Holder ignores the fact that those funds didn't disappear. It's just that rather than going to a few companies with gov't granted monopolies, they went into actual companies doing stuff with the software. That means, those funds did get invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies. In fact, some of the evidence suggests that the money went towards creating even more jobs than it would have if it had gone towards paying for software.

And software piracy affects more than just the software industry -- since, for every $1 of PC software sold, it's estimated that more than $3 of revenues are lost to local IT support and distribution services. Other IP and support industries are seeing the same ripple effect of losses -- and current trends are alarming.

Oh, wait, so you do understand ripple effects. It's just that Eric Holder seems to think ripple effects only go in one direction. They don't. And, um, you do realize that counting "ripple effects" is blatantly misleading in that it's really recounting the same dollars multiple times. Could it be that US Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't understand basic economics and math? Or is he simply accepting widely-debunked claims from an industry that clearly benefits from folks like him repeating those claims? Neither answer seems particularly flattering to Holder.

He then goes on to scold China (without naming them directly) for not doing enough to prop up American businesses. Well, that's not how he puts it, of course, but it's what he's basically saying. Apparently, he hasn't realized that China has been a quick study in figuring out how to use intellectual property laws to hold back foreign companies operating in China -- including many US companies. Encouraging China to respect intellectual property laws is simply encouraging them to harm American companies and innovation, while giving the government more tools to suppress free speech. This is really troubling and dangerous. And, what's most upsetting is that folks like Holder don't even seem to have considered these sorts of reactions.

Next up, he simply makes stuff up to win political brownie points:

As many of you know, last year, President Obama created a new leadership role in the White House -- Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator -- and appointed Victoria Espinel to fill this position.

Except, um, that's not true. President Obama did not create that role. It was created by the (problematic) ProIP bill, which was signed by President Bush, not Obama. Now, Obama did hire the first IP czar, and figure out which department it would go in, but only in response to the law signed by his predecessor. To claim he created the role is blatantly false. This may be a minor point, but it highlights that Holder seems to have filled this entire speech with statements that seem to show a disconnect from reality.

Last December, Vice President Biden convened the administration's first intellectual property summit, which brought together cabinet officials and industry leaders to discuss intellectual property rights and policies

Right. The "summit," which only brought in one side of the debate and kicked out the press. The Attorney General is supposed to uphold the law, right? He must have learned at some point that the entire point of copyright and patent laws is to benefit the public by "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts," right? So, if you're going to convene a "summit" about such intellectual property, wouldn't you expect that the real stakeholders should be present as well -- rather than just a few industry folks seeking regulatory capture and an increase in monopoly rents at the expense of the public?

To build on the contributions and achievements of our prosecutors and investigators, in February of this year, I reestablished the Justice Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property.

Right, at the same time that you were de-emphasizing the importance of things like stopping identity fraud and finding missing persons. But helping prop up a few companies who contribute a lot to political campaigns? We'll get right on that...

There's a lot more like that in the speech, but honestly, the whole thing is shameful. It's a pure propaganda piece for a few industries, at the expense of the public good.

Re: how piracy has a zero effect on economies

This is patently absurd. Everyone knows that there is $50 billion sitting in mattresses the whole world over and that's just from software piracy. We all know you took that $9 and stuffed it in your mattress as well. It's what all the pirates do. And what's more: they're not buying new mattresses either. No! They are stealing empty sacks and filling them with all that money and making that their new mattress. First it's piracy, then it's mattress stuffing, and next thing you know there isn't any more currency in the world, and the whole economy has gone down the toilet. Curse you mattress stuffers! Curse you all!! You are ruining the world for all of us!!!

regarding copyright czar

this also tells you that both republicans and democrats are pro copyrights and thus out of touch with the majority of voters in fact weren't voter numbers down last US election ....people are vastly losing faith to even bother voting...
and id say that once its below 50% you dont have the right to sit in office any of them....

Re: regarding copyright czar

That would be an interesting law: can't hold office unless greater than 50% of the electorate votes you in. Would probably have to couple it with mandatory voting like Australia has. Actually maybe not, that would lead to a lot of vacant offices, which could be a good thing...

Re: regarding copyright czar

A system of representative that I like is for us to pick our representatives on an ongoing basis (ie, we can change from one day to the next if we don't like their voting) from a free market pool that is hopefully very large and with few impediments. This is short of a democracy to the extent that most people would not vote on most issues/bills anyway or would not be sure how to vote and would allow someone else to vote on their behalf especially if that person made a commitment

however, I suspect even this system would be gamed by those with lots of money (eg, by lying about the purposes or likely consequences of a bill or amendment and then marketing that lie aggressively.. on an ongoing basis).

Re: Re: regarding copyright czar

Not my ideal scenario, but one I've daydreamed of:

Ban all political parties. Minimum of 5 candidates per race or the vote is postponed. No one votes for anyone. Everyone gets one vote to vote against their least desirable candidate. Candidate with fewest votes against them gets the job.

Once they're in the job, they have a camera on them the entire time they perform their duties, like a reality show. They're public servants, so they should work in public. No private meetings. No secret lunches with lobbyists. Any work done off camera without a legitimate explanation leads to an instant recall.

Re: Re: Re: regarding copyright czar

I like the cameras idea, but at the national level there are legitimate reasons some things need to be kept secret. You'd have to come up with some way to have someone else determine when the cameras can be shut off for discussion of classified topics. Also, it will never happen. :-)

Re: Re: Re: Huh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?

And in relation to your one x, y or z. Two different things:

- You have few hundred Linux distros (including clones and derivatives of larger distros) because Linux is free and open-source, unencumbered by copyrights.

- You only have one Windows 7, because it is closed-source and copyrighted. Microsoft has the monopoly over the Windows ecosystem.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

I also don't buy the idea that IP laws stop companies from developing software. If this were the case, there would be one OS, one antivirus software, one email client, etc.

The strawman you employed is "IP laws have caused a complete cessation of all software development outside the single monopoly provider of each software type." Nobody is taking that position, but you attacked it anyway. Thus, a strawman.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

By the definition of monopoly, there couldn't be competition in each market of the software world, if the author's statement were true.

Ah, I see the problem. "Monopoly" doesn't actually mean an utter and complete lack of any competition. For example, Microsoft has been found by a court to have monopoly power in the operating system market, despite OSes being available from other providers.

You still haven't answered this question though:

"Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

Quick, abandon the straw man accusations for something else.

You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war. Previously Microsoft was charged by the FTC of abusing it's "OS monopoly". However, this case deadlocked and was dropped.

I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war.

Right. Its monopoly power in the OS market. I was just trying to rebut your claim that monopoly means an absoulte lack of any competitors. It does not mean that. However, I think the other point is much more important:

I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.

What part of it do you not understand? You don't have to answer it of course, but if you refuse to you reduce your credibility. And if you cannot understand such a simple explanation of how copyright works, then I'm starting to think you don't know what copyright is at all. I think it's more likely you're trying to dodge the question, but I'm glad to explain it if you can tell me which of those sentences is not clear.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

What I don't understand is where you quoted that from. You quoted something that hadn't been mentioned in this discussion before, so I was simply saying I don't understand where the quote came from.

I'm fairly sure you're not the brightest crayon in the box. I'm not the one arguing that a monopoly equals no competition. The author of the article claims that copyright equals government granted monopolies. I said if this were the case, then any market with a copyright involved, would only have one supplier, or a variation of supplies that had licensed the copyrighted material. Since that is the definition of a monopoly, then I have proved that copyright law does not constitute government granted monopolies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

File a complaint against the AG

Apparently you can file a complaint against a DOJ employee but it has to be in writing. Process is described at the link below to file a complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility. I am sure nothing will come of it however. Would be nice if they got a bunch of official complaints against the Attorney General for basing an entire speech on made up statistics and industry propaganda.

"you do realize that counting "ripple effects" is blatantly misleading in that it's really recounting the same dollars multiple times."

im not an economist, but i thought the measure of an economy was "ripple effects". the amount of and number of times money changes hands. im not criticizing, i agree with the post, but it causes me confusion. can someone clarify?

I'm surprised he has time to front for IP industries with the ongoing DoJ full-press operations in the Roger Clemens steroid case. That evil-doer has our DoJ and Congress in a battle that's gone all quagmire, and they are going to need more resources.

Missing kids and so-called "Constitutional rights" can clearly wait in triage with the rest of us tax paying beggars.

It's because....

The new Business Plan For America involves offshoring and using the Double Irish Tax Dodge Technique.

When the model is licensing internally, and setting up business subsidaries, money is invested into dodging taxes. By legitimizing false piracy stats, it's possible to dodge the real problem of paying duly-owed taxes.

China Will Not Pay

In the real world, China is not going to spend hundreds of billion dollars of foreign exchange on Intellectual Property Rights. They have national security reasons for not wanting to use Microsoft software, and "Anti-Piracy" is no doubt a convenient pretext for going around and making everyone switch over to Red Flag Linux. As for American entertainment products, the Chinese government blocks them because it considers them socially undesirable. Such products encourage people to want things they cannot have, such as automobiles. Quite apart from the issue of oil, the infrastructure of Chinese cities is not built for large numbers of automobiles, and everything would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

Then, too, there is the whole issue of the pathological tendencies in American Pop Culture. American Pop Culture does not inculcate Confucian values, nor does it even represent the tendencies in American culture which might be analogous. Granted that it may not be feasible to keep this stuff out of China, but the Chinese government is hardly going to pay for importing it.

The Chinese are willing to pay for raw materials, of course. That does not mean they are willing to do so in value-added form. For example, in foodstuffs, they like to buy soybeans, which Chinese peasants can feed to their livestock, producing both meat and fertilizer.

They are also willing to pay for selected technology. By "technology," I do not mean patents or copyrights-- I mean things like source code, blueprints, test cases, raw underlying test data, quality control procedures, etc., and all of the foregoing, not just for the product, but for the tools, dies, and fixtures required to manufacture, ship, sell, and service the product as well. The whole system, in short. Additionally, I include the services of experts as tutors for as long as may be required, bearing in mind that what seems obvious to an American may be lost in translation, and may have to be clarified on the spot. Many American "inventors" could not provide such information because they have never reduced their "inventions" to industrial practice.

By "selected" I mean technology of fundamental importance. That does not mean the latest new video game. It means things like high-speed trains (involving technology purchased from France, Germany, and Japan), or chip fabs. Certain American railroading firms are selling in China. American railroads are not very good at fast passenger trains, but they are good at the kind of heavy, slow, cheap trains required to move raw materials, or to serve as the equivalent of a transcontinental ship canal. If the Chinese want to run a freight railroad to Europe, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF, now owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway) are the experts in that kind of thing.

Meh, another McCorporate McMinion shilling away to a country that does not give a shit about American copyrights and never will. Eric Holder is a minion and a disgrace to his office and the Obama administration are spineless Wall Street puppets. 10 years from now America will be a failed state and it will be other countries who will be calling the shots. Economic collapse - Yes We Will.

So you just make stuff up now. !!

The global software industry is a prime example. Indeed. If you look at open source software and how they've been able to put together incredible businesses, and enable all sorts of innovation by being the core building blocks of the internet, the web, email and giant companies like Google and Facebook, it really is a prime example of how "piracy" isn't a legal issue, but a business model one. Or wait, did you mean something different?

Its funny that out of your list you fail to mention a single SOFTWARE COMPANY, open source, no, google no, facebook NO.

They are not software companies, they are companies that use software, apart from open source, which is a model for copying other software products.

So if a company uses software to do business they are a 'software' company by Mikes definition.

It is easy to see how Mike gets such a warped outlook on how the real world works.

If you cannot see the difference between a company that creates, sells and supports software products as opposed to companies that use software for their day to day business activities, then you should not be commenting on these issues.

To make a claim that facebook is a software company because they use software, is like saying a bank is a software company because they also use software.

Or an office that uses software to create documents, they are not a software company any more than google who uses software to provide a service, that is paid advertising sponsored search.

So Mike, with all your 'expertise' in the industry are you trying to tell us that you believe companies that use software to perform their business are software companies ?

REALLY ?? wow.

So tell us Mike, why is it that people do not even have to say anything like what you "report" on, if they do not say when you wish they did say, you just make shit up and say that they said it.

Even if they did not, that is lying Mike, and you do it all the time..

Re: So you just make stuff up now. !!

I think you entirely fail to get what was being said here - and, as a bonus, then go and get your facts entirely wrong.

The bit you quoted actually states that companies have built valid businesses on open source, and gives the backbone of the Web and other Web-based services as a good example - Apache, Mozilla, MySQL, and Red Hat were all big companies,with some having now been bought by some of the major players in the software industry.
Further, that paragraph also states that Google and Facebook have taken the technologies produced by those companies and used that as the basis of their business model - so that statement is correct.
However, Facebook takes those basic technologies and extends them, writing custom code to allow their users to do new and exciting things - they write software, therefore they are a software company.
OK, so the source code may not be available to everyone, but they make their API's available, and just as they make money from web technologies, so other companies make money by writing software that runs on Facebook.
Google not only writes custom code for their search engine, but they make a lot of code available to the public - Google Earth, Sketch Up, Buzz, Chrome, Google Talk, and many more are all freely available from Google, as are a couple of Operating Systems (Chrome OS - still in development, but there none-the-less - and Android) - I think you could safely say Google is a software company.

More Mike SPIN..

He then goes on to scold China (without naming them directly) for not doing enough to prop up American businesses. Well, that's not how he puts it, of course, but it's what he's basically saying. Apparently, he hasn't realized that China has been a quick study in figuring out how to use intellectual property laws to hold back foreign companies operating in China -- including many US companies.

NO he does NOT Mike, you just made that up. He says NO SUCH THING, and you damn well know it.

He does not even say anything like what you claim he said, so where do you get this crap from Mike, do you just make it up, or are you stupid, or do you think we are so stupid that we cannot see your SPIN from a mile off ?

Really Mike, you have to do much better than that.

At least tell the truth, and stop trying to make out people have made statements that they clearly have not made.

What are you trying to pull here ?

If you had a reputation, this would badly damage it, if you had one..

Are you going to explain to us why you posted a blantant LIE, or are you going to keep quite ?

Re: More Mike SPIN..

NO he does NOT Mike, you just made that up. He says NO SUCH THING, and you damn well know it.

Here is the relevant passage; I'll let everyone make up their own minds about what it means.

"But the simple truth is that our chain of necessary and desired enforcement is only as strong as its weakest link. Let me be blunt: Not every country, not every organization has done enough. It is time to be clear, and honest, about where we can – and where we must – improve. If we are going to turn the page on the problem of international intellectual property crime, we must fully assess current efforts and commit to making meaningful, measurable enhancements.

Like many of your own governments, the Obama Administration recognizes that our nation’s economic prosperity is increasingly tied to industries – like software or life sciences – that rely on strong IP enforcement. That is why we have created a new framework, and called for an increased level of activity, to better protect intellectual property rights."

Facebook gives stuff back too

Actually facebook gives quite a big deal of software back to the community:http://developers.facebook.com/opensource/
There are some really cool (and big!) tools like HipHop and an improved version of memcached, which benefit the OS community a lot!
Google does the same thing. GoogleWave for example is entirely open source.